A MAN who punched another man unconscious in a pub beer garden and then stamped on his leg, breaking it, has been jailed for three years.

Ralph Richards, 42, denied a GBH charge but was convicted at an earlier hearing.

The judge, Mr Recorder Duncan Bould, said that the defendant deliberately targeted his victim Anthony Webster.

“You ran into the beer garden and made a bee-line for him,” Mr Bould told him.

He approached him “in such a way that he was unable to see you coming” and delivered a powerful punch which knocked him unconscious on the floor.

The defendant then used a shod foot to deliberately cause more harm than was necessary.

Richards, of Tan yr Eglwys Road, Rhuddlan, claimed that he had acted in self-defence, but that was rejected by the jury.

Mold Crown Court yesterday was told that while intoxicated at The New Inn in Rhuddlan, the defendant had attacked a man who had done absolutely nothing to him.

Prosecuting barrister John Wyn Williams said that a shod foot had been used to cause serious injuries.

“He stamped upon a defenceless man on the floor, breaking his leg. It was at a public house and drink was involved,” Mr Wyn Williams explained.

The background was that the victim had property stolen from him. He subsequently recovered it from a shop, and from information provided to him by the shop, the defendant's then girlfriend was identified as the person who allegedly sold it.

Mr Webster reported that to the police but he had since been subjected to abuse and unpleasantness.

By the time of the attack in April Mr Webster believed it was all put behind them.

That night Richards became aggressive with another person in the pub.

The judge said that he took the view that the defendant deliberately left the pub and made his way to the beer garden where the attack took place.

“He was rendered unconscious by one blow, two teeth were loosened and while there on the ground you told him that he was not going to get up. You then deliberately stamped on his ankle, causing it to break.”

Richards, he said, showed no regret or remorse.

Henry Hills, defending, said that it was accepted that using the foot as a weapon was an aggravating feature. But he claimed that it had been an impulsive act and that his client had not targeted the victim.